Kierra Zoellick
American University
April 30, 2014
Poverty rates have decreased in the past 20 years
Poverty
line:
3,781birr/ye
ar, which is
about
$225/year in
2011 prices
Table Source: Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Development and Poverty in Ethiopia 1995/96-2010/11, 2013.
please see: www.fews.net/FoodInsecurityScale
Source: FEWS NET Ethiopia and WFP
Figure 2. Most-likely food security outcomes (April to
June 2012)
Food
Insecurity Outlook, Feb.-Jun. 2012
- Agriculture
accounts for 40-45%
of GDP
- Droughts common,
may lead to famine
- Frequent drought
leads to food
insecurity, can be
devastating to the
Source: FEWS NET Ethiopia and WFP
o Acute Food Insecurity (IPC Phase 1) persists in the western poor
arts
ofSource:
the USAID,
country
areFEWS
at Stressed
(IPC
2) and
Crisis
Table
WFP and
NET, ETHIOPIA
Food Phase
Security Outlook
February
through June 2012, 2012, p. 1.
Objectives
1.
2.
Prevent household depletion
Create community assets
Goals
1.
2.
3.
4.
Support rural transformation process
Prevent long-term consequences of short-term food
inaccessibility
Encourage households to engage in production and investment
Promote market development by increasing household
purchasing power
2011 Coverage Map





Map Source: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations,
http://coin.fao.org/cms/world/ethiopia/Projects/Maps.html
Targets “chronically food
insecure”
Two separate
components:
 Public Works
 Direct Support
In 2012, covered 7.64
million people
Cost $500m/year
USAID contributes 2030% of total cost in food
and cash





2006-2008 – real income of beneficiaries rose by 50%
2006-2010 – Five-year participants in the PW had a
reduction in the food gap of 1.05 months
2011-2012 – participation led to reduction in the food
gap of 1.48 months for PW participants and 1.93
months for DS participants
2011-2012 – PW participants were 12% more likely to
have a food gap of 3 months or less due to the PSNP
The PSNP also increases non-food expenditures of
participants by 43 birr per month

Programs designed to work in tandem with
the PSNP (Other Food Security Programme –
OFSP)
 Provide different but complementary services
 OFSP has fewer beneficiaries than the PSNP but
has a strong positive effect on poverty eradication
with the PSNP

USAID and its NGO partners also have
complementary activities

Deciding which households should be a part of
the PSNP

Guidelines from the central government but
targeting is done at the community level

Shaky at first but changes to the program have
made targeting better – for the most part,
households that are getting the support
genuinely need it

Question of graduation

Sub-state implementation
 Local project choice
 Local targeting

Local capacity critical

Transparency/accountability

PSNP uses both with cash as the default
option

Considerations





Local economies
Local government capacity to handle cash
Local preferences
Inflation and seasonal price variation
Resource availability from donors

Relationship between donors and
government

Clear guidelines
1.
Works with other, complementary programs
1.
Refines targeting practices to be most effective
1.
Builds capacity and establishes best practices
at all levels of government
1.
Considers issues related to the question of cash
vs. food
1.
Has a quality program structure